[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[SENAT]
[Pages 9160-9163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 250, 
S. 1940.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940, a bill to 
     amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to restore 
     the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for 
     other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate will continue debate on the farm 
bill today. At 5 p.m. the Senate will proceed to executive session to 
consider the nomination of Mary Lewis to be U.S. District Judge for the 
District of South Carolina. At 5:30 this evening there will be a 
rollcall vote on confirmation of the Lewis nomination.


                             Moving Forward

  Mr. President, I have spoken to Senator Stabenow several times in the 
last couple of days. In fact, I spoke to her today--what time did I get 
back? It is 3 o'clock--at 2 o'clock or thereabouts. She indicated to me 
they are making progress on the bill. There was one amendment she was 
concerned about. I worked that out and told her she could go ahead and 
have that as part of the consent agreement. So I have worked very hard 
to try to make the lives of Senators Stabenow and Roberts easier, and I 
have worked through some of the problems my people had.
  But, Mr. President, the issues on this bill overwhelmingly are on the 
other side, and I hope we can work something out. They have worked so 
hard--Senators Stabenow and Roberts--and I hope we can find a path 
forward. It is important. I commend them for their dedication to this 
measure which cuts subsidies and protects 16 million American jobs.
  We have spent so much precious time on this bill--precious time we do 
not have--and we need to move forward on it. We are going to move 
forward or off of this bill. I hope we will be able to move forward 
today with this bill; otherwise, we are going to have to file cloture 
on the bill because it is the third week of jockeying around on this 
bill.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. President, Astrid Silva is an average American 24-year-old from 
all outward appearances. She is a Las Vegas resident. She is fascinated 
with Nevada history--whether it is Area 51 or about the time when it is 
alleged the mob ran the casinos. She is active in her community, school 
politics, and local politics.
  One day Astrid would like to come to Washington, DC, to see, as she 
said, the Declaration of Independence--see it herself. She recently 
completed her associate's degree at the College of Southern Nevada, and 
she dreams of completing her bachelor's degree at UNLV.
  But there is one issue standing in her way: Astrid is not an American 
citizen. Twenty years ago this week this little girl, 3\1/2\ years 
old--a little baby girl--was brought to the United States by her 
parents. She has no knowledge of Mexico. America is her country. The 
country where she was born--Mexico--she knows nothing about. She speaks 
perfect English. She was an honor student in high school, and she has 
never called anyplace but Nevada her home.
  So, of course, I thought of this brave young woman when President 
Obama announced last Friday he would suspend the deportation of young 
people like Astrid who were brought to this country illegally when they 
were only children.
  I had a difficult campaign, as everyone knows. During that campaign, 
on occasion I would be given a little handwritten note. I would look at 
it later. One was from Astrid telling me of her dreams--her dreams that 
she wanted fulfilled, that could not be because she was not a citizen 
even though this is her country.
  She has been looking over her shoulder for many years now--since the 
time she was old enough to understand--afraid of deportation. She 
decided she was going to step out of the shadows and be no longer 
afraid and become an advocate for the DREAM Act. She is truly a 
DREAMer.
  As we know, the DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for 
outstanding young people who were brought to this country through no 
fault of their own and want to attend college or serve our Nation in 
the Armed Services.
  The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It rewards responsibility with 
opportunity.
  Astrid's handwritten letters convinced me years ago of the importance 
of this issue. Unfortunately, Republican opposition has stalled this 
legislation.
  I was stunned listening to the Republican nominee for President say: 
Why doesn't Congress do this?
  Mr. President, we have tried. We cannot get Republican votes. We have 
tried.
  Thanks to President Obama, Astrid and 800,000 other young people just 
like her who are American in all but paperwork no longer need to live 
in fear of deportation. President Obama's directive to suspend 
deportation of the

[[Page 9161]]

DREAMers comes after a yearlong review. It will be applied on a case-
by-case basis. It frees up law enforcement resources to focus on people 
who actually threaten public safety and national security, and it 
removes the specter of deportation that has hovered over deserving 
young men and women.
  For a long time the Presiding Officer was the chief attorney, the 
chief enforcer of the law in the State of Connecticut, and he had to 
direct his resources where they could best be used. He wanted to focus 
on people who were threatening public safety and national security.
  What good would it do for us as a country to say to people such as 
Astrid: You cannot go to school. What you can do is go ahead and be 
part of a gang. Women become gang members too. Some of those violent 
gang members we have in America today are now women. Are we better off 
preventing these young men and women from going to school, from going 
into the military, even though this is the only country they have ever 
known as home?
  Are we better off saying stay in the shadows or are we better off 
letting them get an education and serving our country in the military? 
The answer to that is so easy.
  It removes the specter of deportation that has hovered over deserving 
young men and women. That is what President Obama did. So I 
congratulate him for this courageous decision--a decision that benefits 
both the DREAMers and our Nation as a whole.
  Like Astrid, these young people share our language, share our 
culture, share our love for America--the only country they know. They 
are talented, patriotic men and women who want to defend our Nation in 
the military, get a college education, work hard, and contribute to 
their communities and this country.
  When they pledge allegiance, it is to the United States of America. 
Unfortunately, President Obama's directive is temporary. The onus is 
now on Congress to protect the DREAMers and fix our broken immigration 
system once and for all.
  For all of these people who are saying: Why didn't you do it in 
Congress, we tried. We invite them here. If they want to make it 
permanent, it could be done very easily.
  Comprehensive immigration reform should be tough, fair, and 
practical. It should continue efforts to secure our borders, hold 
unscrupulous employers accountable, and reform our Nation's legal 
immigration system. It should require 11 million undocumented people to 
register with the government, pay taxes and fines, work, and learn 
English. Then they do not go to the front of the line, they go to the 
back of the line and work their way up.
  Some Republicans have suggested a solution to the DREAMers' terrible 
dilemma should have come from Congress, not the President. I have 
talked about that today already.
  I repeat, it is Republican opposition that has prevented Congress 
from acting. In fact, Senate Republicans have blocked the DREAM Act 
twice. Many Republicans who once said they favored a long-term fix for 
America's broken immigration system are now abandoning efforts to find 
common ground.
  It was interesting to note that on one of the Sunday shows yesterday, 
the former Governor of Massachusetts refused to answer the question 
when asked four times by Bob Schieffer: What is your proposal? He would 
not answer four times. We all know he said if the DREAM Act passed he 
would veto it. But he is saying: Why don't you work it out in Congress? 
But he is saying: If you do, I am going to veto it.
  Obviously, efforts to find common ground have been abandoned. So the 
President took decisive action in offering this directive. But he can 
only do so much by himself. So for Astrid's sake and for the sake of 
every American, it is time for Congress to become part of the solution.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will finally join Democrats to find a 
bipartisan way to mend this Nation's flawed immigration system instead 
of just complaining about the system being broken. The pathway is 
there. We know what needs to be done. We just need a little help from 
our Republican colleagues.
  Will the Chair announce the business of the day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Responding to the President

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond today to some statements 
President Obama has been making on the campaign trail regarding debt, 
spending, and taxes during his administration.
  Last week, the President said he should not be blamed for the massive 
debt and spending in recent years because, in his words, it was all 
``baked into the cake'' when he took office. He also contended that his 
administration has done the responsible thing in taking steps to fix 
our Nation's fiscal problems. Here is the totality of what the 
President said:

       I love it when these guys talk about debt and deficits. I 
     inherited a trillion dollar deficit. We signed $2 trillion of 
     spending cuts into law. Spending under my administration has 
     grown more slowly than under any President in the last 60 
     years. They baked all this stuff into the cake with the tax 
     cuts and the war.

  I would like to respond to each of the President's comments. First, 
on deficits and debt, President Obama is not the reformer he makes 
himself out to be. Since he took office, the national debt has climbed 
by $5 trillion. It is now larger than the entire economy. If we take 
his entire 4 years and all of the Presidents before him, he has 
incurred as much debt as all of the Presidents, from George Washington 
through George W. Bush, just in his time as President.
  Yearly deficits, which is the gap between revenues and spending, have 
grown substantially as well. Despite a promise to cut the deficit in 
half by the end of his first term, the President has run annual 
deficits in excess of $1 trillion for 4 years in a row. None of this 
has anything to do with what happened before he became President. So 
how about after he became President?
  According to the President's own budget numbers, in 2009, the first 
year of his Presidency, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. In 2010 the 
deficit was $1.3 trillion. In 2011 it, again, was $1.3 trillion. If the 
President's policies are followed, the deficit this year is expected to 
top $1.3 trillion. Those are all in the years when he was President.
  The highest deficit under President Bush, his predecessor, was $458 
billion, and that was in 2008. Every deficit under President Obama has 
been more than double that figure. But President Obama says he is 
blameless when it comes to the debt problem? Not hardly. He never even 
submitted a plan to come close to balancing the budget, even with the 
massive tax hike he supports.
  As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote last week:

       Despite [the President's] claim that ``both parties have 
     laid out their policies on the table,'' President Obama has 
     made no serious proposal to fix the runaway entitlement 
     programs that threaten to swamp the government's finances.

  Dana Milbank is not a conservative Republican.
  Second, let's take a look at the President's claim that spending 
during his Presidency has grown more slowly than during any Presidency 
in the last 60 years. That claim does not pass the smell test.
  Keith Hennessey, former Director of the National Economic Council, is 
one of many observers who has debunked this claim.
  First, as Hennessey notes, the President's claim is based on a 
discredited article that suggests he isn't actually accountable for 
anything that happened before October 1, 2009. That is

[[Page 9162]]

the start of the fiscal year. But, of course, he took office almost 9 
months before that time.
  In other words, that timetable excludes the auto bailouts, the first 
year of the stimulus bill--which, of course, was President Obama's 
legislation--the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a lot of 
other things. As Hennessey writes, this date was ``cherry-picked . . . 
to make President Obama's record look good.''
  I would ask: Does President Obama also disclaim anything to do with 
the auto bailouts that occurred during that same period of time? No, 
last time I heard, he was bragging about that. That is the height of 
cherry picking. The things that make you look good, you take; the 
things that make you look bad, you reject. You can't have it both ways.
  Second, the President actually proposed spending far higher than was 
enacted into law. For example, his latest budget request proposed 
spending of $3.72 trillion in fiscal year 2013. But the President is 
taking credit for spending in the CBO baseline which is $3.58 trillion, 
which is somewhat less than the $3.72 trillion he proposed. So the 
President wanted to spend more but was restrained by the Republicans in 
the House of Representatives in Congress.
  Mr. Hennessey also explains how the President's spending claim 
collapses once you take three basic errors into account. He writes:

       If you instead do this calculation the right way and 
     measure the average annual growth rate from fiscal year 2008 
     to CBO scoring of the President's budget proposal for fiscal 
     year 2013, you get an average annual growth rate of Federal 
     spending of 4.5 percent. That is a nominal growth rate, so 
     the real growth rate will be in the 2s.

  Finally, on spending, it is inaccurate to measure a President's 
record without looking at the overall size and scope of government. 
President Obama's preference for big government is obvious to everyone. 
He usually argues for it. He doesn't argue he is for a smaller or less 
active government. Well, the historical average of spending to gross 
domestic product before President Obama took office was roughly 20.6 
percent.
  So how does President Obama's record stack up? Here is the breakdown 
of spending to gross domestic product. These are the ratios during the 
Obama years. Remember now, this is compared to the historical average 
of 20.6 percent. In 2009, his first year, 25.2 percent; next, 2010, 
24.1 percent; in 2011, 24.1 percent again; and an estimate for this 
year, 2012, is 24.3 percent.
  All of these figures are substantially higher than the historical 
average of spending at 20 percent. So his spending every year he has 
been in office, including the projected spending this year, will be far 
greater than the historical average.
  And lastly, in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2013, 
which would be next year, the spending averages 22.5 percent--still 
above the 20-percent historical figure.
  So it is no wonder President Obama doesn't want to run on his real 
spending record, because it is not one of fiscal constraint.
  Third, I want to address the President's claim that the tax relief 
Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 somehow played an outsized role in 
driving up the debt. We have heard him talk about this--if it weren't 
for the Bush tax cuts, he said we would be closer to having a balanced 
budget. Not true. The records for this come from the nonpartisan 
referees at the Congressional Budget Office. These are not partisan 
people--not on one side or the other--and they have shown what we have 
is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
  In May of 2011, CBO released an analysis showing that nearly 50 
percent of the cumulative budget deficit since 2001 is due to increased 
government spending, 28 percent of it is due to economic and technical 
corrections, and 11 percent is due to temporary stimulus-like tax 
provisions. The 2001 and 2003 tax relief to which President Obama 
refers--which, by the way, is the same tax relief he extended for 2 
years about a year and a half ago--accounts for how much? Just 14 
percent of the deficit since 2001 and 2003.
  So, far from being the cause of the deficit, it only accounts for 14 
percent of the deficit. It is inaccurate for the President to place the 
blame for his spending records on broad-based progrowth tax relief that 
has helped to create jobs and economic growth in this country prior to 
the last downturn--and that he himself supported extending.
  Additionally, the recently released ``Long-Term Budget Outlook'' 
estimates that tax revenues will exceed the historical average in the 
next 10 years if this same tax policy--the 2001 and 2003 tax relief--is 
extended, and if Congress prevents the alternative minimum tax from 
hitting millions of additional middle-class families. And that is what 
Republicans have been supporting all along. So we will get back to the 
historical average of revenues raised.
  We all know robust economic growth is the most effective way to 
reduce our debt and that raising taxes will not achieve that goal. 
Failure to stop this tax-driven fiscal cliff could push us into another 
recession next year, again according to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office. It would result in a $4.59 trillion tax hike on 
individuals, families, businesses, and investors over the next decade. 
We have said that is the largest tax increase in the history of our 
country--over $4.5 trillion. If we are serious about increasing tax 
revenues through economic growth, avoiding a recession is a good place 
to start.
  Republicans are happy to debate President Obama on the best way to 
create jobs and to get our country back on sound fiscal footing. But in 
order to do so, we need to get the facts straight first. President 
Obama has not lived up to his promise to cut the deficit. He has not 
reduced spending in any meaningful way. And tax relief is not the main 
reason why we are in the red today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Agriculture Reform

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to talk 
about the critically important piece of legislation currently before 
the Senate, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. But first I 
would like to thank Senators Stabenow and Roberts for the great work 
they have done to get us to this point in the reauthorization process.
  The bill as reported out of the Agriculture Committee saves taxpayers 
more than $23 billion over the next 10 years and will support millions 
of jobs. With this bill, we are taking several important steps in 
making our farm support system more responsive to actual need rather 
than sending payments to producers no matter what they grow. We are 
long past due in eliminating direct payments. At the same time, we are 
maintaining a strong crop insurance program and creating a new system 
that makes assistance available to producers when they actually 
experience a loss.
  Another important area of reform in this bill is payment limitations 
and ensuring that actual farmers receive payments. Senator Grassley and 
I have worked for years to lower the caps on our farm program payments 
and to direct payments to family farmers. The new Agriculture Risk 
Coverage Program contains a cap of $50,000 and requires that program 
payment recipients contribute labor to the farm operation. Current law 
has enabled multiple farm managers in an operation to qualify for 
separate farm program payments with as little participation as one 
conference call a year. Not anymore under this bill. I am disappointed 
that there have been amendments filed to weaken this language. I don't 
understand how anyone can stand before this body and justify sending 
Federal farm program payments to people who aren't engaged in 
agriculture. Our country faces serious fiscal challenges,

[[Page 9163]]

and it seems to me that limiting farm payments to real farmers is a 
reasonable concept. I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to weaken 
this language.
  With this bill we are also taking important steps to combine and 
streamline our conservation programs, while still allowing us to 
continue meeting the same land, water, and wildlife goals. 
Additionally, this bill contains a sodsaver provision that will 
discourage the breaking of native sod for crop production.
  One area of the bill with which I am disappointed is that it does not 
contain a livestock title. However, I have joined with some of my 
colleagues in filing amendments to give our independent livestock 
producers a fair shake in the marketplace. Along with Senator Grassley 
and others, I have worked for more than a decade to prohibit the 
ownership of livestock by the big meatpackers for more than 14 days 
prior to slaughter. Additionally, I have joined with Senator Enzi in 
filing an amendment to require more transparency in the use of forward 
contracts in the livestock markets. These are important provisions that 
I hope my colleagues will support.
  I also applaud the committee's work on the energy and rural 
development titles, which strengthen our rural economies. The Rural 
Development water and wastewater program has been a critical funding 
source to help alleviate a severe water infrastructure need on the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. I hope my colleagues will act 
favorably on Senator Brown's amendment that I have cosponsored to 
bolster this and other Rural Development programs.
  Finally, I would like to commend efforts to address the pine beetle 
epidemic in the forestry title of this bill. The underlying bill does 
good work to increase flexibility, and I support the efforts of Senator 
Mark Udall and others to increase the resources we are providing to the 
Forest Service to address this threat to our forest health and public 
safety.
  I understand that the Agriculture Committee leaders and Senate 
leadership have been making progress in their negotiations toward an 
agreement on a path forward. I hope we can avoid letting a small 
minority of Senators hold up progress on this bill. It is time that we 
act and that we give our producers certainty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 3306 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield to the Chairman.

                          ____________________